Post New

The Army released a statement today on Trump's recent visit to the ANC. I didn't find a direct link to the statement in two minutes of googling (I'm a bit lazy sometimes). And I'm tired of trying to find neutral sources for facts and information. The content of the Army's statement doesn't change based on where you read it. So here's a link to a decidedly left-leaning video that shows the full statement (pause the video at about 2:17 to read it) and adds a bit of further context and info.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ETOmt8gev4

I found this little tidbit interesting:
This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked.

Her professionalism. Her professionalism.

This was a woman trying to tell this misogynist goon what he could and couldn't do at the sacred grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. No wonder she was ignored and physically attacked and disrespected. No wonder she was accused of having a "mental illness."

How anyone can support this poor excuse for a human being is beyond me.

--Peter

And did you hear JD Vance expressing his ANGER about the response to this 'solemn' occasion. What a jerk. He said "Kamala Harris can go to hell!" Somehow in connection with this incident.

I feel for the families who lost love ones in the exit from Afghanistan. But Trump trying to turn this into a photo op is obscene as well as illegal. Him standing there with that big phony grin and thumbs up? Sickening.

<< How anyone can support this poor excuse for a human being is beyond me. >>

I devoted nearly 50 years to studying how people form their political views and why they support various political candidates for office. The informational bases of those views and votes are flimsy at best for roughly a third of adult Americans. They may think Trump conveys “strength” or “tells it like it is” or is a “smart businessman.” Press them a bit on why they think that way, and most of the time you’ll get blank stares. Many of them are the “low education” voters for whom Trump expresses his love.

Then you’ve got a bunch of ride-or-die Republicans who vote and defend their brand, end of story. They know Trump’s a narcissistic sociopath, but he’s their narcissistic sociopath.

Add in the white bigots, the misogynist incels, the white evangelicals who believe that God delivered this flawed prophet to lead them, a sprinkling of Hispanic machismos, and the money-grubbers who’d vote for Mussolini if he promised them a tax cut (these are not mutually exclusive categories), and you’ve covered most of the Trump supporters.

The MAGAs who are left, some of whom voted for Obama once or even twice, consist largely of white males and their wives who were shafted by decades of misguided neoliberal economic policies and are fed up with anyone who gives off the vibes of being yet another elitist politician. Alas for them, probably their best hope in decades was Joe Biden.

Add in the white bigots, the misogynist incels, the white evangelicals who believe that God delivered this flawed prophet to lead them, a sprinkling of Hispanic machismos, and the money-grubbers who’d vote for Mussolini if he promised them a tax cut (these are not mutually exclusive categories), and you’ve covered most of the Trump supporters.

I think the largest explanation is negative partisanship.

Many (most?) Republicans would never vote for a Democrat. Not because they always support the Republican candidate - they just always oppose the Democratic candidate. It's not a strong positive partisan affiliation for "their side"; instead, it's a strong partisan antipathy for "the other side."

The same is true of Democrats.

One of the most important recent characteristics of the modern political landscape is the rise of this negative political partisanship. Many (most?) Americans are voting against the party they dislike, rather than voting for a party or candidate they like.

Many (most?) Americans are voting against the party they dislike, rather than voting for a party or candidate they like.

So am I aberrant in that I'm voting against the man (convict)? Just as I would vote against -for example- Menendez, even though he is a "D", if he were running. There are just some lines you can't cross and expect my support, no matter which party.

"..Americans are voting against the party they dislike, rather than voting for a party or candidate they like."

if this was ever true (i.e., all pols are corrupt, so i'll vote my party), then it was many decades ago.

since the GOP tea party began, the party differences became exponentially stark to now our current reality. there is a parallel to the many middle-roader dolts claiming they had no way to judge trump (as competent, as ethical, as whatever....) until he had a try at potus.

so that leads to a conclusion that 'anti-party' americans have yet to peak in being lazy or stupid in their vetting. given the party chasm, even the eligible but absent voter doesn't deserve a break from this grouping.

<<I think the largest explanation is negative partisanship.>>

It is certainly an important factor, not only in the U.S. but in other Western-style democracies, as well. In the U.S., evidence indicates that the racial realignment of the major parties is closely connected to it:

"For decades before Donald Trump came on the political scene, Republican-elected officials and candidates sought to lure racially conservative White Democrats in the South and elsewhere into the GOP camp with racially tinged messages about the dangers posed to Whites by African-American crime, forced busing of schoolchildren, and affirmative action and by emphasizing the complicity of Democratic politicians in these threats. ...[T]he American party system underwent a realignment that transformed the racial, regional, and ideological bases of the two major parties.... That realignment resulted not only in a growing gap between the racial composition of the Democratic and Republican electoral coalitions but a dramatic increase in racial resentment among White Republican voters" (http://www.stevenwwebster.com/negative-partisanshi...)

More broadly, in-group/out-group identification and hostility have deep roots in human nature, and power-seekers often exploit those tendencies in pursuit of personal gain. Trump's nonstop ravings about masses of criminals, Hannibal Lecter, "poisoning the blood," etc., is a stark example.

The system-level problem is that negative partisanship infects the entire political process, making compromise and sensible policymaking increasingly difficult. That reinforces prevailing negativity, and the wheel turns.

It might pre-date the Tea Party. But I agree, that was the iridium layer in the sedimentary record. Since then, they've gone bonkers. Shifting so far to the right that I am now a left-winger. I wasn't in college. But I am today. Unless I go to Europe, then I'd probably be considered a moderate centrist over there.

The Tea Party really lost me. That, and the amplified religiosity in politics.

Many (most?) Americans are voting against the party they dislike, rather than voting for a party or candidate they like.

True in general, but the massive shifts in support for Harris over Biden among several key demographics strongly suggests that a lot of folks now see an opportunity to vote for a candidate they like.

"Voters 18 to 34 years old moved from supporting Trump by 11 points to supporting Harris by 13 points, 49%-36%.
Hispanics, a group the Republican campaign has been cultivating, moved from supporting Trump by two points to supporting Harris by 16 points, 53%-37%. Black voters, traditionally one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic groups, moved from supporting Biden by 47 points to supporting Harris by 64 points, 76%-12%. Lower-income voters now support Harris 58%-35%."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elect...

So am I aberrant in that I'm voting against the man (convict)? Just as I would vote against -for example- Menendez, even though he is a "D", if he were running. There are just some lines you can't cross and expect my support, no matter which party.

Not aberrant, surely. At most, you're just not someone who isn't motivated by negative partisanship.

Of course, even negative partisans can also have individual reasons to vote against an opposing candidate. I'm sure there were lots of folks who were never in a million years going to vote for a Republican who found something individual they disliked about Mitt Romney (the dog!) or John McCain (the running mate choice!).

if this was ever true (i.e., all pols are corrupt, so i'll vote my party), then it was many decades ago.

No, it's more prevalent today than ever before. But your description isn't exactly accurate.

Negative partisanship usually involves finding the opposing party unacceptable. Not all politicians, and not necessarily anything specific to individual candidates in the opposing party. Just that you think that the party stands for, or advocates something, you find reprehensible.

These voters aren't motivated by support for their party; they're motivated by opposition against another party.

https://news.arizona.edu/news/rise-negative-partis...

True in general, but the massive shifts in support for Harris over Biden among several key demographics strongly suggests that a lot of folks now see an opportunity to vote for a candidate they like.

Some folks, sure. There's persuadable voters out there who aren't motivated by negative partisanship.

But note that the number of folks that actually made those shifts number in the single digits, and even then only in specific sub-categories (referring to the margin of support, rather than the percentage that switched, essentially doubles the size of the shift). Overall, switching out Harris for Biden moved maybe 5-7% of declared voting preferences in the polls. Which is big in this day and age, but not inconsistent with the idea that most of the electorate is pretty much locked in to one party or the other.

Which is big in this day and age, but not inconsistent with the idea that most of the electorate is pretty much locked in to one party or the other.

I have mentioned this historical event before, but it is so so so on point with this discussion I’ll bring it up once again.

Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in March, 1929. (Inauguration was later then.) In September of that same year the stock market crashed. Over the next weeks and months things got worse. Then worse. Then much worse. Those who watched what happened here in 2008 might have some idea of how bad things got, except in 1929 it was twice as worse .

Thousands of banks failed, and there was no FDIC. Hundreds of thousands of businesses failed, and there was no unemployment insurance. Millions lost their jobs, a there was no safety net. People really did sell pencils or apples on street corners, trying to scrape together enough to buy a meal for their family. Farms were foreclosed, houses were lost, suicide rates spiked sharply in 1930, then higher in 1931, and higher again in 1932.

And this went on month after month, grinding ever more finely, for a full 3 1/2 years, downward, always downward. OK, enough with the scene setting, except it’s not enough but will have to do.

And with all of that, in the 1932 election Herbert Hoover stood for re-election - and got 40% of the vote. FORTY PERCENT. Think about that.

Of course FDR won that election and went on to win several more, and triggered a wholesale realignment of the voting populace. And then *that* realignment went on to become the Great Democratic Party that (mostly) prevailed until the passage of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s - and within a decade the stranglehold was broken with the ascension of Nixon’s overtly racist “Southern Strategy.” FDR’s coalition of Midwest populism, southern racism, and northern and western liberals survived for decades until at last Republicans found the key to pry it open.

We seem to be in an in between state now, with both parties at roughly 45%, plus or minus, but once people are “locked in” it’s really hard to get a realignment. I would have thought a candidate and person as terrible as Trump might have done that, but I guess not.

I wonder how much worse he would have to be, and I hope we never find out.

<< the number of folks that actually made those shifts number in the single digits, and even then only in specific sub-categories…>

Ok, although some of those categories are pretty large. Also, I’m interested in learning about how many folks were merely resigned to voting against Trump but are now (also) eager to vote FOR Harris-Walz (e.g., me). The Suffolk U. survey asked questions that explore this, and the results should be available soon.

" << How anyone can support this poor excuse for a human being is beyond me. >>

hopefully one of you political wiz kids will convince me. I don't like trump, but I like Vance even less. I don't like the way the Dems ran the 2020 playbook, even more. FB and Twitter have now confirmed what was obvious at the time. IF Harris wins, we get 8 more years of team biden harris. IF trump wins, in 2028 both parties will have a totally open and transparent convention. The young talented people in both parties would compete for their party's nomination. The biggest risk is a trump win could result in 7 or more conservative Supreme Court Justice's. On the other hand, team biden harris hasn't exactly brought peace and prosperity to the world the past 4 years. Which outcome is better long term for my kids and grandkids? For once perhaps our generation will put our grandkids, first. WHERE is the left wing of the Dem party, do they agree with the new and improved Harris? Let's be serious, by Nov 8th the war within the party will begin if Harris wins. Thank you.

hopefully one of you political wiz kids will convince me.

I hold no hope of convincing anyone who thinks Trump is in the slightest way acceptable, but I will write a few words about the reverse.

I could have voted for John McCain even though I disagreed with several of his positions on issues I care about. I could have vote for Mitt Romney, same. I didn’t have to, because the Democratic candidate wasn’t a raving lunatic. I was initially intrigued by Ross Perot until he self-destructed in a blizzard of paranoia and mindless rants. I may have voted for H.W. Bush in that election I honestly don’t remember. I *do* remember being unimpressed by Clinton, but he did get my vote the second time. I simply thought Bob Dole too old and too wedded to the misfits in his party to get my vote.

And there are people I would *never* have voted for, such as Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, or Richard Nixon, who I knew to be a shape shifter fro the 50’s. I’m happy to report that history has verified my choice(s) there. Needless to say, Trump trumps them all; he is arguably the most venal, brainless, horrible candidate in this century, and probably in the century prior to that, and perhaps even the century before that. That I disagree with many of his “policies” (and I use the word loosely since he really doesn’t have any) is beside the point, he’s simple a horrible human being, worse than the crazy Uncle who disrupts Thanksgiving dinner with his endless stream on inanity and stupidity.

I hated LBJ and would have voted for someone reasonable, had Nixon not been his opponent; when LBJ dropped out I held my nose and voted for Humphrey. I didn’t care for Carter, but I could not forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon and Carter got my vote. In retrospect, and with some political maturity, I now realize that Ford’s pardon was actually the right thing to do for the country, but I was too young to understand it at the time.

I voted for Carter over Reagan, mostly because Carter actually put his Presidency in jeopardy by appointing Volker and his promise to raise rates drastically to stem inflation. It worked, and Carter lost. I did not like Reagan’s first term, nor Mondale, and I may not have voted in that election, I don’t remember.

It’s OK to choose one or the other, at least for me. There is no candidate who matches my policy preferences perfectly, and I would happily choose a candidate who seems modestly competent over one who is so embroiled with his own ego and disdain for ordinary norms as Trump is.

It is not much of a stretch to say I would vote for Mr. Potato Head over Trump, if only because Mr. Potato Head is inert, and Trump is actively malignant to the Democratic process.

"These voters aren't motivated by support for their party; they're motivated by opposition against another party."

where is the evidence that people in this movement are able to separate party from the major figures in each party?

a recent podcast (i recall it was 'what could go right') indicated that major media outlets have greatly simplified their pitch (for ratings obviously) to the public by focusing party publicity\policy on an increasingly small number of high profile politicians, thus reinforcing the person=party environment.
e.g., i can envison a more rational world where no one would have ever heard of, or cared about MTG.

its even a bigger stretch to suggest these groups understand differences in policy as a source of their prime motivation.
but i have to concede there is a very small number of seemingly rational people where no explanation, including this one, can be backed up. this group seems too small to make any difference.

where is the evidence that people in this movement are able to separate party from the major figures in each party?

That's not really relevant, at least on this issue. Regardless of whether the voters' negative assessment of the other party is based on their policies, or based on the people who are the "face" of the party, they regard the party as an unacceptable choice. So a Republican might refuse to ever vote for any Democrat because they hate Nancy Pelosi, or a Democrat might refuse to ever consider any Republican because they hate Mitch McConnell. They're not committed GOP or Democratic voters because they love their own party, but because they hate the other party - regardless of where the hate sprang from.

Of course, even negative partisans can also have individual reasons to vote against an opposing candidate.

Over the years I've done a step back overall-looking review of both parties. This is just an overall look at which party, policies, are more in line with my perceptions of America and the World. I look at the candidates, then do a step back overall-look review. Did a little legal study and reading true history. Somehow I managed to get in with a group of historical buffs - those people who like to read original first hand source material *and* history books and learned to avoid presentism. Every time I read history I come across something that makes me stop and think.

not trying to perpetuate something unproductive here, but what's really new?

opposite-party attacks have been the easiest, and often the most productive among low information voters for centuries.
you are correct that it doesnt matter if anti-party voters cannot remember or understand their reason for the dislike, as it is always the simplest of strategies.

also, most campaigns EXCLUSIVELY giving voters cause to dislike the opposite party has also been long trending.
on rare occasion one may get a commercial with 5 second blurb line regarding a positive case for a downticket politician independent of party issues, but this is often when the primary brand of the politician themselves is of optimism, so quite uncommon.

not trying to perpetuate something unproductive here, but what's really new?

In the past, partisan identification and voting patterns were largely driven by positive partisanship. Voters that were true partisans would be allied to their preferred party because of positive support for their identified party. A lifelong yellow dog Democrat would be dedicated to their party because of their party - they might be convinced of the rightness of their policies, or derive patronage benefits from being affiliated with the party, or admire/esteem its leaders, or any of a bunch of other factors specific to their party. And the same would be true of a rock-ribbed Republican.

That's now been replaced to a large degree by negative partisanship. Partisan voters aren't supporting their party; they are opposing the other party. The die-hard Democratic voter isn't motivated by what they love about the Democrats, but what they hate about Republicans (and vice-versa).

This matters, because it affects how voters respond to parties' failures and problems. When voters are positively partisans, keeping their support requires keeping their love/esteem/well regard for your party. Democrats keep the Democratic base in their column by delivering them the things they love, and vice-versa for the Republicans. The degree of support that positive partisans will provide depends a lot on how they are feeling about their own party.

With negative partisanship, though, voters are far less concerned about what's happening within their own party - they're motivated by what's happening in the opposition party. It doesn't matter all that much whether their own party is doing something that's disappointing to them - they're motivated by resistance to the other guys, after all. As long as you're stopping the other guys from winning, you're meeting the needs of those voters.

For negative partisans, their candidate isn't all that central to their decision-making. What matters is the other candidate. Which is why, I think, this explains why Trump has such a high floor despite all of his many faults. Those faults are beside the point, except to the extent that they make it harder for him to stop the Democrats. Because stopping the Democrats is what's necessary to help the country, irrespective of whether Trump is a terrible person or not.

In the past, partisan identification and voting patterns were largely driven by positive partisanship.

You've got to be talking about what for some folks is ancient history. My recollection of the last significant positive partisanship has to have been around the
Reagan era. The 1980 campaign was mostly about Carter. Carter talked about himself positively (when he was doing the little bit of campaigning he did - he was mostly working on getting the hostages home), and Reagan talked about Carter negatively. That's going to pre-date the memories of a good number of posters here.

But even before then, negative partisanship was commonly used. Nixon is probably a good example with his Southern strategy. Get the Southern Democrats mad at their party to get them to switch to the Republican party. He successfully made those folks believe that the Democrats were the enemy - a feeling that persists to this day. And that event certainly predates my own awareness of political events, even though I was alive at the time (and probably learning to add and subtract).

I'd guess that the majority of folks here see negative partisanship as the norm, with politicians choosing the positive path being oddities. That's what is making the whole Harris campaign feel a bit strange - and possibly refreshing. They're going down the positive path, for the most part. They're letting others (like the Lincoln Project and Republicans for Harris) take the negative road.

--Peter

You've got to be talking about what for some folks is ancient history. My recollection of the last significant positive partisanship has to have been around the Reagan era. The 1980 campaign was mostly about Carter. Carter talked about himself positively (when he was doing the little bit of campaigning he did - he was mostly working on getting the hostages home), and Reagan talked about Carter negatively. That's going to pre-date the memories of a good number of posters here.

Negative partisanship isn't the same thing as negative campaigning.

Positive and negative partisanship are explanations for why partisan voters hold the preferences they have. Positive partisans prefer their party because they like their party; negative partisans prefer their party because they dislike the other party.

Neither forecloses using negative campaigning.

I don't like the way the Dems ran the 2020 playbook, even more.

Wouldja explain this? What was the "2020 playbook" and what you didn't like?

Negative partisanship isn't the same thing as negative campaigning.

But don’t the two go hand in hand?

If your voters are positively partisan, you run a positive campaign. If your voters are negatively partisan, you run a negative campaign.

—Peter

But don’t the two go hand in hand?

If your voters are positively partisan, you run a positive campaign. If your voters are negatively partisan, you run a negative campaign.

No, you can run the negative campaign in either environment.

If the electorate is characterized by positive partisans, you run negative ads against your opponent to try to discourage their base. Your opponent's partisans are allied with the opposing party because they feel positively about it, so a negative campaign can reduce their affinity for the opposing party by attacking their candidate.

If the electorate is characterized by negative partisans, you run negative ads against your opponent to try to activate your base. The negative ads are still useful, but now they're activating the negative partisans on your team rather than going after the positive partisans on the opposing side.

And of course, negative ads are always useful against the unaffiliated or undecided. I don't say "independent," because a huge number of independents are not undecided. That's where a lot of the most intensely negative partisans are - people who loathe one of the parties, but don't have strong enough positive feelings with the other party to register or self-identify as belonging to that party. These are the people who hate Democrats or Republicans (either their politicians or their policies), so they'll never really consider voting for them - but don't bother joining the "other team," so to speak.

That's now been replaced to a large degree by negative partisanship. Partisan voters aren't supporting their party; they are opposing the other party. The die-hard Democratic voter isn't motivated by what they love about the Democrats, but what they hate about Republicans (and vice-versa).

That sorta describes me. The Reps have crossed some red lines with me that the Dems haven't, so I vote against them. This is before they went completely BSC with the convict. He was another red line.

So I don't really have to pay attention to the candidates today. If they are "R" and support the convict, they are a no-go with me. Period. I also am very unlikely to vote for an anti-choice candidate unless they have some other awesome policy positions, nor a religious zealot (that's an automatic "no" from me).

But the Dems haven't really excited me since 2016 (Warren, Yang, Sanders...I really liked Warren).

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.